The Oyez Project: 1983 Term Decisions

Allen v. Wright (No. 81-757)

No details yet.

Aloha Airlines, Inc. v. Director Of Taxation (No. 82-585)

No details yet.

Aluminum Co. v. Central Lincoln Util. Dist. (No. 82-1071)

No details yet.

Arizona v. Rumsey (No. 83-226)

No details yet.

Armco Inc. v. Hardesty (No. 83-297)

No details yet.

Bacchus Imports Ltd. v. Dias (No. 82-1565)

No details yet.

Badaracco v. Commissioner (No. 82-1453)

No details yet.

Berkemer v. Mccarty (No. 83-710)

No details yet.

Bernal v. Fainter (No. 83-630)

No details yet.

Block v. Community Nutrition Institute (No. 83-458)

No details yet.

Block v. Rutherford (No. 83-317)

No details yet.

Blum v. Stenson (No. 81-1374)

No details yet.

Board Of Education v. Vail (No. 83-87)

No details yet.

Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. (No. 82-1246)

No details yet.

Brown v. Hotel Employees (No. 83-498)

No details yet.

Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. FLRA (No. 82-799)

No details yet.

Burnett v. Grattan (No. 83-264)

No details yet.

Calder v. Jones (No. 82-1401)

No details yet.

California v. Trombetta (No. 83-305)

No details yet.

Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp (No. 82-1795)

Was the Court's summary disposition of the case constitutionally legitimate?

In a per curiam opinion, a majority of the Court held that the Florida court had misapplied the law and that a warrantless search of the automobile was permissible since the vehicle was already in police custody. The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Stevens, argued that the Supreme Court's decision to bypass the Florida Supreme Court judgment and to consider the case was ill-advised. Justice Stevens maintained that summarily disposing of such cases unduly enlarged the Supreme Court's responsibilities and deemed state judges incompetent to decide Fourth Amendment questions.

Chevron U.S. A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council (No. 82-1005)

No details yet.

City Council v. Taxpayers For Vincent (No. 82-975)

No details yet.

Clark v. C.C.N.V. (No. 82-1998)

No details yet.

Colorado v. New Mexico (No. 80 ORIG)

No details yet.

Colorado v. Nunez (No. 82-1845)

Did the Land Reform Act of 1967 violate the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Public Use Clause did not preclude Hawaii from taking title in real property, with just compensation, for the purpose of reducing the concentration of ownership. Noting that Hawaii's statute was rationally related to a conceivable public purpose, the Court argued that "debates over the wisdom of takings" were best carried out by legislatures, not by federal courts. The Court also held that the fact that the property taken by eminent domain was transferred to private beneficiaries did not condemn the law to having a solely private purpose.

Commissioner v. Engle (No. 82-599)

No details yet.

Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Darrone (No. 82-862)

No details yet.

Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank Of Richmond (No. 83-185)

No details yet.

Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. (No. 82-1260)

Did the removal of the child from Linda Sidoti's custody violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that while ethnic prejudices did exist in society, those private biases were not permissible considerations for the removal of an infant child from the custody of its mother. "Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect." The Court thus held that the decision of the lower courts was an unconstitutional denial of rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. Fox (No. 82-1200)

No details yet.

Davis v. Scherer (No. 83-490)

No details yet.

Dickman v. Commissioner (No. 82-1041)

No details yet.

Dixson v. United States (No. 82-5279)

No details yet.

Donovan v. Lone Steer, Inc. (No. 82-1684)

No details yet.

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders (No. 83-18)

No details yet.

EEOC v. Shell Oil Co. (No. 82-825)

No details yet.

Ellis v. Railway Clerks (No. 82-1150)

No details yet.

Escambia County v. Mcmillan (No. 82-1295)

Did Oklahoma's ban against retransmitting out-of-state cable signals containing alcoholic beverage commercials violate the Supremacy or Commerce Clauses?

The Court held unanimously that Oklahoma's ban on local cable transmissions of out-of-state alcoholic beverage commercials violated both the Supremacy and Commerce Clauses. While Oklahoma can regulate local cable aspects, such as franchise formation and construction, it cannot tamper with the flow of information from other states. Such tampering violates the Federal Communication Commission's guidelines prohibiting the censorship or alteration of interstate broadcast signals. As such, in the interest of maintaining diverse program offerings and encouraging competition among cable providers, the FCC's guidelines supercede Oklahoma's local regulatory authority. Moreover, despite its broad power under the Twenty-first Amendment to regulate the importation and use of intoxicating liquor, the Court held that the federal government retains final authority under the commerce clause to regulate all aspects of interstate liquor commerce. Therefore, Oklahoma's continued ban on interstate alcoholic advertising violated the Commerce Clause.

Escondido Mut. Water Co. v. La Jolla Indians (No. 82-2056)

No details yet.

FCC v. ITT World Communications, Inc. (No. 83-371)

No details yet.

FCC v. League of Women Voters of California (No. 82-912)

No details yet.

Firefighters v. Stotts (No. 82-206)

No details yet.

Flanagan v. United States (No. 82-374)

No details yet.

Florida v. Meyers (No. 83-1279)

No details yet.

Franchise Tax Board Of California v. Usps (No. 83-372)

No details yet.

Furniture Moving Drivers v. Crowley (No. 82-432)

No details yet.

Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Authority (No. 82-1913)

No details yet.

Grove City College v. Bell (No. 82-792)

No details yet.

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (No. 83-141)

No details yet.

Hayfield Northern R. Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Tr. Co. (No. 82-1579)

No details yet.

Heckler v. Community Health Services (No. 83-56)

No details yet.

Heckler v. Day (No. 82-1371)

No details yet.

Heckler v. Edwards (No. 82-874)

No details yet.

Heckler v. Matthews (No. 82-1050)

No details yet.

Heckler v. Ringer (No. 82-1772)

No details yet.

Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia v. Hall (No. 82-1127)

No details yet.

Hishon v. King & Spalding (No. 82-940)

No details yet.

Hobby v. United States (No. 82-2140)

No details yet.

Hoover v. Ronwin (No. 82-1474)

Was Hustler's circulation of magazines within the forum state of New Hampshire alone sufficient, without regard to the depth of plaintiff's contacts or the amount of plaintiff's damages caused in New Hampshire, to support an assertion of personal jurisdiction in a libel action based upon the contents of the magazine?

Yes. Hustler's regular circulation of magazines in New Hampshire is sufficient to support an assertion of personal jurisdiction in a libel action based on the contents of the magazine. In analyzing whether there are sufficient minimum contacts to permit personal jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment, a court should focus on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. Hustler has continuously and deliberately exploited the New Hampshire market and therefore it must reasonably anticipate being hauled into court there. Keeton did not need to have minimum contacts with the forum state in order for that state to have asserted personal jurisdiction over Hustler. New Hampshire had a sufficient interest in adjudicating the dispute. Moreover, even though most of the harm done to Keeton occurred outside New Hampshire, the same would be true in most libel cases brought anywhere other than plaintiff's state of domicile.

Hudson v. Palmer (No. 82-1630)

Was Grove City College subject to federal requirements because its students received federal grants? Did the provisions of Title IX violate the First Amendments rights of the College?

The Court held that there was no "substantive difference" between institutional assistance and aid received by a school through its students; Title IX coverage, the Court found, was triggered by the BEOG's. The Court noted that the assistance did not trigger institutionwide coverage under the Amendments, however. Only the College's financial aid program was subject to the federal requirements. The Court concluded that prohibiting discrimination as a condition for federal assistance did not infringe upon the First Amendment rights of the College and that the school was free to end its participation in the grant program.

Icc v. American Trucking Assns., Inc. (No. 82-1643)

No details yet.

Ins v. Delgado (No. 82-1271)

Is there a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule?

Yes, there is such an exception. The justices held that evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant could be introduced at trial. The exclusionary rule, argued the majority, is not a right but a remedy justified by its ability to deter illegal police conduct. In Leon, the costs of the exclusionary rule outweighed the benefits. The exclusionary rule is costly to society: Guilty defendants go unpunished and people lose respect for the law. The benefits of the exclusionary rule are uncertain: The rule cannot deter police in a case like Leon, where they act in good faith on a warrant issued by a judge.

INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (No. 83-491)

No details yet.

Ins v. Phinpathya (No. 82-91)

No details yet.

Ins v. Stevic (No. 82-973)

No details yet.

Irving Independent School Dist. v. Tatro (No. 83-558)

No details yet.

James v. Kentucky (No. 82-6840)

No details yet.

Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde (No. 82-1031)

No details yet.

Justices Of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon (No. 82-1479)

No details yet.

Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc. (No. 82-485)

No details yet.

Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States (No. 82-1994)

No details yet.

Koehler v. Engle (No. 83-1)

No details yet.

Kosak v. United States (No. 82-618)

No details yet.

Limbach v. Hooven & Allison Co. (No. 83-96)

No details yet.

Louisiana v. Mississippi (No. 86 ORIG)

No details yet.

Lynch v. Donnelly (No. 82-1256)

No details yet.

Mabry v. Johnson (No. 83-328)

No details yet.

Massachusetts v. Sheppard (No. 82-963)

No details yet.

Mccain v. Lybrand (No. 82-282)

No details yet.

Mcdonald v. West Branch (No. 83-219)

No details yet.

Mcdonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood (No. 82-958)

No details yet.

Mckaskle v. Wiggins (No. 82-1135)

Does the judiciary's imposition of deadlines by which disability claims must be processed constitute an unconstitutional interference with a legislatively mandated statute?

Yes. In a 5-to-4 opinion, the Court held that Congress already considered and expressly rejected the imposition of mandatory disability dispute-resolution deadlines. Such deadlines, according to congressional reports, would subordinate quality of service to timeliness. The Court cautioned that pervasively regulated areas, such as the Social Security Act in general and its dispute resolution mechanisms in particular, should be left free of judicial intervention that is far less attuned to the needs of the constituencies served by such legislation.

Michigan Canners & Freezers v. Agricultural Bd. (No. 82-1577)

No details yet.

Michigan v. Clifford (No. 82-357)

No details yet.

Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. Of Ed. (No. 82-738)

No details yet.

Minnesota Bd. For Community Colleges v. Knight (No. 82-898)

No details yet.

Minnesota v. Murphy (No. 82-827)

No details yet.

Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp. (No. 82-914)

No details yet.

Ncaa v. Board Of Regents Of Uni v. Of Okla. (No. 83-271)

No details yet.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (No. 83-712)

No details yet.

New York v. Quarles (No. 82-1213)

No details yet.

New York v. Uplinger (No. 82-1724)

Did the ban on editorializing violate the First Amendment?

Yes. Even though the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate the broadcast medium, "since broadcasters are engaged in a vital and independent form of communicative activity," Congress must use the First Amendment to "inform and give shape" to its regulation. Justice Brennan argued that no legitimate government interest was served by the law which broadly banned all editorializing, a form of speech which "lies at the heart of First Amendment protection."

Nix v. Williams (No. 82-1651)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco (No. 82-818)

No details yet.

NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, Inc. (No. 82-960)

No details yet.

Norfolk Redev. & Housing Auth. v. C. & P. Tel. (No. 81-2332)

No details yet.

Ohio v. Johnson (No. 83-904)

No details yet.

Oliver v. United States (No. 82-15)

No details yet.

Palmore v. Sidoti (No. 82-1734)

No details yet.

Patton v. Yount (No. 83-95)

No details yet.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. R. A. Gray & Co. (No. 83-245)

No details yet.

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court Of Cal. (No. 82-556)

No details yet.

Pulley v. Harris (No. 82-1095)

No details yet.

Pulliam v. Allen (No. 82-1432)

No details yet.

Reed v. Ross (No. 83-218)

No details yet.

Regan v. Time, Inc. (No. 82-729)

No details yet.

Regan v. Wald (No. 83-436)

No details yet.

Richardson v. United States (No. 82-2113)

No details yet.

Roberts v. United States Jaycees (No. 83-724)

No details yet.

Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. (No. 83-196)

No details yet.

Russello v. United States (No. 82-472)

Did the search violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

No. Citing the peculiarities associated with searches on school grounds, the Court abandoned its requirement that searches be conducted only when a "probable cause" exists that an individual has violated the law. The Court used a less strict standard of "reasonableness" to conclude that the search did not violate the Constitution. The presence of rolling papers in the purse gave rise to a reasonable suspicion in the principal's mind that T.L.O. may have been carrying drugs, thus, justifying a more thorough search of the purse.

Schall v. Martin (No. 82-1248)

Did the search of Palmer's locker and cell violate the Fourth Amendment? Did prison officials deprive Hudson of his property in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?

The Court held that the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches did not apply "within the confines of the prison cell." Noting that privacy was fundamentally incompatible with the maintenance of prison security and surveillance, the Court found that "the paramount interest in institutional security" outweighed all privacy concerns. The Court further held that "random and unauthorized" deprivations of property did not violate the Due Process Clause, so long as postdeprivation remedies were available.

Schneider Moving & Storage Co. v. Robbins (No. 82-1860)

No details yet.

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart (No. 82-1721)

No details yet.

SEC v. O'Brien (No. 83-751)

No details yet.

Secretary Of Interior v. California (No. 82-1326)

No details yet.

Secretary Of State Of Md. v. J. H. Munson Co. (No. 82-766)

No details yet.

Securities Industry Assn. v. Board Of Governors (No. 82-1766)

No details yet.

Securities Industry Assn. v. Board Of Governors (No. 83-614)

No details yet.

Segura v. United States (No. 82-5298)

No details yet.

Selective Service System v. Minn. Pub. Int. (No. 83-276)

No details yet.

Silkwood v. Kerr-Mcgee Corp. (No. 81-2159)

No details yet.

Smith v. Robinson (No. 82-2120)

No details yet.

Solem v. Bartlett (No. 82-1253)

Should evidence resulting in an arrest be excluded from trial because it was improperly obtained?

No. The Court relied on the "inevitable discovery doctrine," as it held that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the child's body as evidence since it was clear that the volunteer search teams would have discovered the body even absent Williams's statements.

Solem v. Stumes (No. 81-2149)

No details yet.

South Carolina v. Regan (No. 94 ORIG)

No details yet.

South-Central Timber Dev. v. Wunnicke (No. 82-1608)

No details yet.

Southland Corp. v. Keating (No. 82-500)

No details yet.

Spaziano v. Florida (No. 83-5596)

No details yet.

Strickland v. Washington (No. 82-1554)

No details yet.

Summa Corp. v. California Ex Rel. Lands Comm'n (No. 82-708)

No details yet.

Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB (No. 82-945)

No details yet.

Thigpen v. Roberts (No. 82-1330)

No details yet.

Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering (No. 82-629)

No details yet.

Tower v. Glover (No. 82-1988)

No details yet.

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp. (No. 82-1186)

No details yet.

United Building & Constr. Trades v. Mayor (No. 81-2110)

No details yet.

United States v. Arthur Young & Co. (No. 82-687)

No details yet.

United States v. Cronic (No. 82-660)

No details yet.

United States v. Doe (No. 82-786)

No details yet.

United States v. Gouveia (No. 83-128)

No details yet.

United States v. Jacobsen (No. 82-1167)

No details yet.

United States v. Karo (No. 83-850)

No details yet.

United States v. Leon (No. 82-1771)

No details yet.

United States v. Lorenzetti (No. 83-838)

No details yet.

United States v. Mendoza (No. 82-849)

No details yet.

United States v. Morton (No. 83-916)

No details yet.

United States v. One Assortment Of 89 Firearms (No. 82-1047)

Was Consumer Union's article written with "actual malice," thereby placing it outside the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?

No. The Court held that while the record revealed that the article's author mistakenly described the sound path of Bose speakers, he did not do so with actual malice. A review of the author's testimony showed that he heard the Bose speaker sounds as tending to wander "along the wall" between speakers, rather then "about the room." Despite this disparity, the Court held that the description of Bose speaker sounds as wondering "about the room," though a misconception, was not written with actual malice since its author was not aware of his mischaracterization in time to remedy the error. Therefore, his speech was entitled to First Amendment protection.

United States v. Rodgers (No. 83-620)

No details yet.

United States v. Stauffer Chemical Co. (No. 82-1448)

No details yet.

United States v. Varig Airlines (No. 82-1349)

Did the National Park Service regulations violate the First Amendment by curtailing symbolic speech?

In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the regulations did not violate the First Amendment. The Court noted that expression is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, and that the manner of the protest was at odds with the government's interest in maintaining the condition of the parks. The Court argued that the Park Service did not attempt to ban all sleeping in public parks (only in certain areas), and that the protesters had alternative means of communicating their message.

United States v. Weber Aircraft Corp. (No. 82-1616)

No details yet.

United States v. Yermian (No. 83-346)

No details yet.

Waller v. Georgia (No. 83-321)

No details yet.

Washington Metro. Transit Auth. v. Johnson (No. 83-747)

No details yet.

Wasman v. United States (No. 83-173)

No details yet.

Welsh v. Wisconsin (No. 82-5466)

No details yet.

Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Vaughn (No. 82-2042)

No details yet.

Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Tully (No. 81-2394)

Did the resurrection of pre-California law which allowed some gender-based classification in Social Security allocations violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

The unanimous Court upheld the law. Justice Brennan granted that the 1977 amendments temporarily revived gender-based eligibility requirements, but maintained that they served a legitimate government interest, namely, they protected individuals who had planned for their retirements relying on the law as it stood before the Court's Califano decision. The resurrected eligibility criteria were narrowly drawn, applying to those individuals who were eligible for spousal benefits prior to 1977 who retired by 1982. Since many individuals who are planning for retirement rely on the law in making investment and spending decisions, changing the law (as Califano did) without giving some leeway to people who had already planned for the future would place an unreasonable burden on many who were close to retirement.